Wike/Yerima saga: Dangerous precedent in celebrating Yerima’s defiance, Prof. Hon warns

Michael Olumide

Senior Advocate of Nigeria and respected constitutional law authority, Professor Sebastine Hon, has issued a strongly worded legal critique of the confrontation between Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister, Nyesom Wike, and Naval Officer A.M. Yerima, describing the officer’s conduct as “a total breach of the law.”

In a formal statement, Prof. Hon dismissed public sentiments surrounding the incident and focused strictly on the legality of the officer’s actions.

He argued that Yerima’s attempt to obstruct the Minister from accessing a parcel of land, because he was obeying “superior orders,” was unsupported by both constitutional principles and established military jurisprudence.

Citing the recent Supreme Court decision in Onunze v. State (2023) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1885) 61, the professor emphasized that the obligation of a military or police officer to obey superior orders does not extend to orders that are “palpably illegal or manifestly unjust.”

He reminded that officers swear an oath not merely to obey commands but to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.

He added that an officer who obeys an unlawful order becomes personally liable for the resulting misconduct, including facing a court-martial.

Prof. Hon further referenced Nigeria Air Force v. James (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 295, which reiterates that military personnel are subject to both military and civil law and cannot shield themselves behind illegal directives.

According to the Supreme Court in that case, a soldier is only bound to obey lawful orders and bears responsibility when he executes orders that are “grossly and manifestly illegal.”

Describing the order Yerima claimed to be obeying as legally defective, Hon noted that no Nigerian military regulation empowers a serving officer to guard the private construction site of a superior officer.

If any criminal activity, such as trespass or arson, was suspected, he said, the proper approach would have been to involve the civil police.

The professor underscored the constitutional position of the FCT Minister, who exercises all powers of land administration in Abuja on behalf of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

By virtue of section 297(2) of the 1999 Constitution, all land in the FCT belongs to the Federal Government, while section 302 enables the President to delegate such administrative powers to the Minister. Consequently, Hon argued, Wike was acting as the President’s representative, “standing in loco the President of Nigeria and Commander-in-Chief”, and therefore should not have been obstructed by any military personnel, serving or retired.

Thus, the SAN contended that the confrontation amounted to “an affront to the civil authority of Mr. President.”

While acknowledging that the Minister’s style may appear abrasive, Prof. Hon insisted that Wike acted within the bounds of the law.

The real breach, he said, came from the officer who obstructed a public official carrying out constitutionally assigned duties.

He pointed to section 114 of the Armed Forces Act, which renders military officers criminally liable for civil offences, arguing that Yerima could lawfully be tried before a Court Martial for obstruction of a public officer and other related offences.

Closing his statement, Prof. Hon cautioned Nigerians against celebrating Yerima’s actions simply because of political bias against Wike.

Such public approval, he warned, could embolden security operatives to engage in unlawful conduct against civilians in the future.

“If such intolerable conduct is not punished or is celebrated,” he argued, “this may unleash a reign of terror by men in khaki against hapless civilians, with a grin or boast that ‘we did it to Wike and nothing happened.’ This is not the Nigeria of our dream.”